Photography instruction assumes cognitive uniformity. Teachers describe their own process and expect students to replicate it. “Learn to see the light.” “Pre-visualise the image.” “Feel the moment.” These instructions make perfect sense if your brain works like the teacher’s brain, but they become incomprehensible if it doesn’t.
A teacher who pre-visualises images will teach visualisation as foundational skill. They’ll talk about seeing the final print before making the exposure, about holding the complete image in your mind and using technique to manifest it. They’ll describe their own experience of vision guiding execution, and they’ll expect students to develop the same capacity.
But if the student can’t visualise clearly, if their mental imagery comes as verbal descriptions or vague impressions rather than clear pictures, this instruction is useless. “See the image in your mind” makes no sense when your mind doesn’t produce clear images. You can try harder, concentrate more, but you’re attempting to use cognitive equipment you don’t have. The harder you try, the more you fail, and the more you conclude you lack talent or artistic sensibility.
The student doesn’t lack talent. They have different cognitive architecture. They need to be taught how to construct images from analytical principles instead of manifesting pre-existing visions. But if the teacher doesn’t realise cognitive variation exists, they’ll just tell the struggling student to “see better,” which solves nothing.
The same problem occurs in reverse. An analytical teacher who works from principles and construction will teach composition rules, technical relationships, systematic approaches to decision making. They’ll break photography down into component skills: understanding light, controlling exposure, managing depth of field, arranging elements within the frame. They’ll expect students to build images from these principles.
But if the student is a strong visualiser who thinks primarily in images rather than principles, this instruction feels clumsy and slow. They can already see what they want. Being told to think through compositional rules interrupts their natural process. They don’t need to analyse. They need to learn technical execution sufficient to capture what they’re already seeing internally.
Neither teaching approach is wrong, but both assume all students process the same way. The result is that roughly half the students in any class are being taught in a way that doesn’t match their cognitive architecture. They struggle not because they lack ability but because instruction doesn’t align with how their minds actually work.
This gets compounded by the verbal articulation problem. Many photography courses require students to discuss their work verbally, explain their process, write statements. This favours students with strong inner monologues who can generate verbal explanations easily. Students who think primarily visually or intuitively struggle to translate their understanding into words, and that struggle gets interpreted as lack of conceptual sophistication rather than cognitive difference.
I’ve watched this happen repeatedly in educational settings and I see it happen in my family with one of my nieces. A student makes visually sophisticated work but can’t articulate what they’re doing verbally. The instructor concludes the student is “just intuitive” and hasn’t developed conceptual understanding. They push the student to think more analytically, write more clearly, explain their intentions. The student becomes frustrated because they do understand their work, just not verbally. Their understanding lives in the images, and being forced to translate it into words feels like being asked to explain music without referencing sound.
Meanwhile, another student makes mediocre images but writes convincingly about them. They’re verbally sophisticated, can reference theory, articulate intentions clearly. The instructor treats this student as more conceptually developed even though the actual images don’t support that assessment. Verbal fluency gets mistaken for visual sophistication.
Effective teaching would start by helping students identify their own cognitive profile. Do you visualise clearly or work from verbal descriptions? Do you have a strong inner monologue or process non-verbally? Do you work intuitively or analytically? None of these answers is better, but knowing which category you fall into determines what teaching approach will actually help you.
For strong visualisers with quiet inner monologues, teaching should focus on technical execution and trusting visual intuition. These students need to learn how to manifest what they’re already seeing internally. They don’t need composition theory or analytical frameworks. They need to understand their equipment well enough that it doesn’t interfere with capturing their vision. Teaching them analytical methods just clutters their natural process.
For verbal processors with weak visualisation, teaching should focus on principles, systematic decision-making, building images from component choices. These students need frameworks for constructing images analytically because they can’t rely on pre-visualisation. Telling them to “just see it” accomplishes nothing. They need to understand how composition works structurally so they can build effective images from principles.
For students who fall somewhere in the middle, with moderate visualisation and moderate verbal processing, teaching can incorporate both approaches. They can learn to work from vision when it’s available and from analysis when it’s not. They have access to both modes and can develop flexibility between them.
The key is recognising that these are different pathways to the same destination. All of them can produce strong work. But they require different instruction because they’re using different cognitive tools.
Beyond identifying cognitive profiles, teaching could provide multiple routes through the same material. When teaching composition, offer both visual examples and analytical principles. Show portfolios of strong work so visualisers can absorb patterns intuitively, but also explain the structural relationships so analytical thinkers can understand the principles. Give students options for demonstrating understanding: make visual responses, write analysis, discuss verbally, whatever matches their natural mode.
This requires more work from instructors because they can’t just teach the way they themselves learn. They need to understand cognitive variation and provide pathways that serve different architectures. But the payoff is students who actually develop rather than struggling against instruction that doesn’t match their minds.
It also requires changing assessment methods. If we’re evaluating photographers primarily on their images, then verbal articulation shouldn’t carry significant weight. Artist statements and written proposals become optional ways to provide context rather than required demonstrations of seriousness. Students who can write well about their work should be allowed to, but students who can’t shouldn’t be penalised for cognitive differences unrelated to photographic ability.
Portfolio reviews should focus on the images. Can this person see? Do they understand light? Are their compositional choices effective? Is there coherence across the work? These questions can be answered visually without requiring verbal explanation. If a student makes strong work but can’t articulate process verbally, that’s fine. The work demonstrates understanding more convincingly than words would anyway.
For students who do have strong verbal processing, that can be channelled usefully. They can write about their work, contribute to critical discourse, potentially teach others. But that’s one path among several, not a universal requirement for legitimacy.
Teaching methods could also adapt to different processing styles. Demonstration works better than verbal explanation for visual thinkers. Show them images, show them process, let them learn by watching and doing. Verbal thinkers benefit from discussion, written materials, articulated principles. They want to understand why something works, not just see that it works.
Group critiques could offer multiple modes of engagement. Visual comparison: put images next to each other and discuss relationships. Verbal analysis: articulate what’s working and why. Physical response: how does the image make you feel bodily. Students engage through whatever mode serves them best rather than being forced into verbal articulation regardless of cognitive architecture.
None of this is revolutionary. It’s just recognising that people think differently and teaching should adapt to that reality rather than assuming uniformity. But photography education has been slow to acknowledge cognitive variation, probably because most instructors aren’t aware their students’ minds might work fundamentally differently from their own.
I can teach certain things effectively because I work verbally and analytically (it doesn’t mean I enjoyed teaching at the university when I did it, but that’s another story). I can articulate principles, explain relationships, provide frameworks for decision-making. Students who share that cognitive architecture find my teaching helpful. But I’d be a terrible teacher for strong visualisers with quiet inner monologues because my natural teaching mode doesn’t match their natural learning mode. I’d need to consciously adapt my approach, provide more visual demonstration and less verbal explanation, trust their intuition rather than pushing them toward analysis.
The best teaching recognises which students need which approach and provides accordingly. It doesn’t assume one pathway works for everyone. It doesn’t privilege verbal over visual or analytical over intuitive. It meets students where they are cognitively and helps them develop along pathways that suit their actual minds rather than trying to force everyone into the same mode.
This would produce better photographers and probably make the teaching experience less frustrating for everyone involved. Students wouldn’t struggle against instruction that doesn’t match their cognition. Teachers wouldn’t wonder why some students can’t grasp what seems obvious. Everyone would recognise that cognitive variation is real and teaching needs to account for it.
Photography is diverse enough to accommodate radically different working methods. Teaching should reflect that diversity rather than assuming everyone processes the same way. Some photographers will always work from vision, others from analysis, others from intuition, others from systematic method. All of these can produce extraordinary work. Teaching should help each student develop along the pathway that matches their cognitive architecture rather than forcing everyone down the same road.
#Photography #IMayBeWrong #opinion #Personal #Teaching